Go-Around Decision at Albert Whitted
A destabilized approach, a low-altitude go-around decision, and the margin between recovery and terrain impact — in a glass-panel C172S
The scenario
Departing Albert Whitted Airport (KSPG), St. Petersburg, FL — Runway 07, landing after a local flight. Elevation 7 ft MSL. It is late afternoon; the wind is from the northwest at 12 gusting to 18 knots — a crosswind for Runway 07 (true heading 062°). You are within crosswind limits (Vfe 110 KIAS, demonstrated crosswind capability 15 knots), but the gusts are at the edge.
You are on short final for Runway 07, 300 ft AGL, descending at 65 KIAS (Vref). The approach has been stable until the last 30 seconds: a wind gust pushed you high and right of the centerline. You corrected with a forward slip, but now you are 200 ft AGL, 100 ft short of the runway threshold, and still high. The runway is ahead; the landing area is clear. But the approach is no longer stable — you are high, and the landing will be long.
Aircraft: Cessna 172S, solo, within weight and balance limits. Glass panel (G1000), fuel-injected Lycoming IO-360-L2A, fixed gear, fixed-pitch prop. Fuel selector BOTH. Nothing was written up; the airplane is airworthy.
Pilot: you — a Private pilot, current, roughly 250 hours total. You have 40 hours in the C172S. You have practiced go-arounds in training, but this is a real decision at a real airport with real consequences. The off-field environment off Runway 07's departure end is open water — Tampa Bay. A go-around that fails is not a field landing; it is a ditching or a stall into terrain.
- {'label': 'Field', 'value': 'KSPG · Albert Whitted'}
- {'label': 'Runways', 'value': '7/25 · 18/36'}
- {'label': 'Elevation', 'value': '7 ft'}
- {'label': 'Aircraft', 'value': 'C172S'}
- {'label': 'Dominant phase', 'value': 'Landing / Takeoff'}
The decision
Before we get into the decision tree — what do you know about go-around technique in the C172S? (Pick all that apply; this records your baseline.)
What the record shows
What the NTSB files show
NTSB CEN25LA128 (2025): A Cessna 172S lost control during landing flare and the pilot initiated a go-around near a tree line at low altitude. The accident resulted from the pilot's failure to maintain adequate airspeed during the go-around, leading to an aerodynamic stall and terrain impact. The probable cause was the pilot's failure to maintain airplane control and adequate airspeed during the go-around.
NTSB CEN23LA159 (2023): A Cessna 172S on a personal flight experienced a tailwind on final approach and the pilot attempted a go-around when landing appeared long. The aircraft porpoised, the nose landing gear collapsed, and the aircraft departed the runway. The probable cause was the pilot's failure to maintain airplane control during an attempted go-around resulting in abnormal contact with the runway pavement and a runway excursion.
NTSB ERA21LA202 (2021): A Cessna 172S on short final in gusting crosswind conditions was high and slow; the pilot initiated a go-around but improper pitch control resulted in a tail strike and runway excursion to the left into grass. The probable cause was the pilot's improper pitch control during a go-around in gusting crosswind conditions.
NTSB CEN14CA322 (2014): A Cessna 172S being flown by a student pilot during landing practice stalled and impacted terrain off the left side of the runway when the student applied excessive back pressure on the control yoke during a go-around after a bounced landing. The probable cause was the student pilot's use of excessive back pressure on the flight controls during an attempted go-around that induced a stall and loss of control.
NTSB CEN13LA348 (2013): A Cessna 172S flown by a solo student pilot stalled during a go-around after a bounced landing at Grand Forks International Airport. The probable cause was the student pilot's inadequate recovery from a bounced landing, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall during the go-around.
The consistent thread across all these accidents: a go-around at low altitude (200–300 ft AGL) in a C172S requires precise pitch control and airspeed management. The most common error is excessive back pressure on the yoke — pulling up too aggressively to gain altitude — which results in a stall. At 200 ft AGL, a stall is unrecoverable. The real accidents cited above occurred at other airports and in other aircraft types — NOT at Albert Whitted Airport. KSPG's dominant accident pattern includes LOSS_OF_CONTROL_INFLIGHT (20%), FORCED_LANDING (16.4%), and STALL_SPIN (12.7%), but the specific go-around accidents in the NTSB database happened elsewhere. The scenario is localized to KSPG to make the off-field environment (open water off Runway 07) real and consequential for you as a student here.
The key lesson: a go-around at 200 ft AGL over open water is a marginal maneuver. It can work, but only with precise pitch control — nose-down to maintain airspeed, shallow climb, gradual flap retraction. A steep pitch-up and a pull-back on the yoke is fatal. Sometimes the best decision is to land, even if the landing is not smooth.
Key lesson — A go-around at low altitude (200–300 ft AGL) in the C172S is a high-risk maneuver. The most common error is excessive back pressure on the yoke, which results in an aerodynamic stall. At low altitude over open water, a stall is unrecoverable. Maintain airspeed (65–70 KIAS) with nose-down pitch, retract flaps gradually, and climb at a shallow angle. If the approach is destabilized at 200 ft AGL, consider landing (even if long) rather than going around. Off Runway 07 at KSPG, the off-field environment is open water — a failed go-around is a ditching or terrain impact, not a field landing.
Debrief — teaching points
A go-around at 200 ft AGL is a marginal maneuver — it can work, but only with precise pitch control.
The C172S's best rate of climb (Vy) is 74 KIAS; best angle of climb (Vx) is 62 KIAS. During a go-around, you want to maintain 65–70 KIAS (between Vx and Vy) with full power and a shallow pitch attitude. The nose should be slightly above the horizon, not aggressively pitched up. At 200 ft AGL, you have roughly 30 seconds of useful altitude before the ground becomes unforgiving. A steep pitch-up and a pull-back on the yoke will result in a stall — and at 200 ft AGL, a stall is unrecoverable. The NTSB data shows that pilots who attempt go-arounds at low altitude often do not recover.
Flap retraction during a go-around must be gradual — not all at once.
When you retract flaps from 30° to 0°, the trim changes and the nose pitches down. If you retract all flaps at once at low altitude, the pitch change is pronounced and you may instinctively pull back on the yoke to maintain altitude — which is exactly the wrong thing to do. Retract flaps in stages: 20° first, then 10°, then 0°. As each flap increment is retracted, the airplane pitches down slightly, and you can trim or adjust pitch gradually. This keeps the pitch attitude shallow and the airspeed stable.
Airspeed is the priority during a go-around — altitude gain is secondary.
The stall speed in landing configuration (flaps 30°) is Vs0 = 40 KIAS. During a go-around, you must maintain at least 65 KIAS (Vref) to stay well above stall speed. If the airspeed decays below 60 KIAS, you are approaching the stall. The correct response is to lower the nose (trade altitude for airspeed), not pull back on the yoke. Altitude is a resource you can trade for airspeed; airspeed is a resource you cannot trade for altitude. At 200 ft AGL, you have limited altitude to trade, so maintaining airspeed is critical.
In gusting crosswind conditions, a go-around is higher-risk because the wind gust that forced the decision may also affect the climb-out.
The wind at KSPG is 12 gusting 18 knots from the northwest — a crosswind for Runway 07. A gust that pushed you high on short final may also affect the go-around climb-out. If you are climbing at a shallow angle and a wind gust hits, the airspeed may decay. The correct response is to anticipate this: maintain a slightly higher airspeed (70 KIAS instead of 65 KIAS) during the go-around in gusting conditions, and be ready to lower the nose if a gust causes the airspeed to decay. Alternatively, divert to a runway that is more aligned with the wind (Runway 25 is into the wind for this wind direction).
Off Runway 07 at KSPG, the off-field environment is open water — a failed go-around is a ditching.
The off-field environment off Runway 07's departure end (heading 062°) is open water — Tampa Bay. There is no alternate landing surface. If a go-around fails at low altitude off Runway 07, the outcome is a ditching or terrain impact into the water, not a field landing. This is the geographic reality of KSPG. A go-around at 200 ft AGL over open water is a high-risk maneuver. If the approach is destabilized at 200 ft AGL, consider landing (even if long) rather than going around. A firm landing on a long runway is survivable; a stall over open water is not.
A stable approach is always the priority — if the approach becomes unstable, either land or go around, but do not attempt to salvage an unstable approach at low altitude.
The FAA's definition of a stable approach includes: on the correct flight path, airspeed stable and within limits, descent rate stable and within limits, and the airplane configured for landing. If any of these criteria are not met at 500 ft AGL, the approach is unstable. An unstable approach at 200 ft AGL is a trap: you are too low to go around safely, but too unstable to land safely. The correct decision is to go around early (at 500 ft AGL or higher) if the approach becomes unstable. A go-around at 500 ft AGL is a normal maneuver; a go-around at 200 ft AGL is a high-risk emergency.
Built from the real accident record
Scenario built from NTSB CEN25LA128 (2025 C172S stall during go-around), CEN23LA159 (2023 C172S go-around loss of control), ERA21LA202 (2021 C172S tail strike during go-around), CEN14CA322 (2014 C172S student stall on go-around), and CEN13LA348 (2013 C172S solo student stall during go-around). Localized to KSPG.
NTSB reports: CEN25LA128 · CEN23LA159 · ERA21LA202 · CEN14CA322 · CEN13LA348
ACS tasks: PA.I.F — Weather Information · PA.II.D — Takeoff and Climb · PA.III.D — Approach and Landing · PA.IX.C — Emergency Approach and Landing · PA.I.H — Human Factors
Relevant FARs: §91.3 · §91.13 · §91.185
Step through the full decision tree, make the calls, and see where each choice leads — then debrief it with your CFI.
Open the interactive scenario →All sample scenarios · More Cessna 172S scenarios · More scenarios at KSPG